Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #377 on: December 25, 2011, 01:58:15 PM »
Alight, fair enough.  But the fact that all people do develop that sense of agency, to a degree, I find that to be interesting

So do I.  Among other things, I think it says a lot about evolutionary theory.  Most people (including me) tend to think of evolution strictly in terms of physical characteristics as they relate to the organism's adaptation to the environment.  It can be easy to forget that evolution also selects for behaviors and psychological characteristics.

Quote
and seems pretty close- minded if someone just brushes it off as completely illusionary

I'm not aware of anyone who has, but in any event, I would agree that it would be unwise to do so.

Quote
when they'll admit their other senses are telling them things about the world.

Such as what?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12282
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #378 on: December 25, 2011, 04:18:01 PM »
The intiuitive view of matter as being made of continuous stuff without sub-atomic void spaces in it is universal and wrong.  But it is not "completely illusory".  It reflects real things:  The fact that on the macro-scale, that's how matter generally seems to behave.  The fact that matter can't simply pass through other matter.  These are real observations, and our intuitive idea of what "solid" means is an effective model of the way things work.

It just also happens to be wrong.  A more educated view of "solid" harmonizes our intuition's observations (our feelings) to what we've learned about the universe through science.  "Solid" changes from "continuous material" to "group of particles that organize into molecules and whose fields of charge occupy space, causing them to act - in most cases - as if they are a continuous material".

The idea of "free will" is still in the "continuous material" stage.  I suggest that a more educated understanding should replace it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #379 on: December 25, 2011, 06:15:34 PM »
To quote Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" For you that word is "indefinite". Please stop using it and substitute another word so we can see if you understand what you are saying. (Yes I said that the way I wanted to.)

"immaterial substance"? A material which is immaterial? So do you mean it is 'unimportant' or 'irrelevant'?

Alright, I'm back again for a minute, feel like addressing this.

No, 'immaterial' as in not quantifiable.

Check a dictionary. "Immaterial" NEVER means "not  quantifiable". So I was right to quote "The Princess Bride" - although for the word "immaterial". You haven't confirmed that you don't know what "indefinite" means.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 06:22:05 PM by Samothec »
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #380 on: December 25, 2011, 07:32:20 PM »
Check a dictionary. "Immaterial" NEVER means "not  quantifiable". So I was right to quote "The Princess Bride" - although for the word "immaterial". You haven't confirmed that you don't know what "indefinite" means.

I usually use 'indefinite' when talking about things that cannot be given a numerical value. 

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #381 on: December 25, 2011, 07:38:51 PM »

I usually use 'indefinite' when talking about things that cannot be given a numerical value.

What would be an example of something that cannot be given a numerical value and would therefore be indefinite? Just curious.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #382 on: December 25, 2011, 07:44:06 PM »
Well, mathematically, it could refer to something like an integral with no bounds, and things of that nature.

Or, it could be when talking about more abstract concepts,  something like,   niceness, or alive, or awareness etc. 

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #383 on: December 25, 2011, 07:46:59 PM »
nm.....
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 08:03:40 PM by Gill »

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #384 on: December 26, 2011, 03:47:53 AM »
I'm saying I don't personally think all valid knowledge about objective reality has to come from logic or empirical evidence.  This knowledge can come from intuition alone in some cases, free-will being one to consider.

Really.

How do you verify the truth of an intuition?  Perhaps you - gosh! - use logic or empirical evidence?  Because if you can't/won't verify it, you have no way of knowing if your intuition is right or wrong?  Use intuition as a possible starting point for a hypothesis?  Sure - no problem with that at all.  But then what?  You test your intuition to see if it is valid.

But go ahead - name an intuition that you can be sure is true that you have not verified with logic or evidence.  Because I'm honestly struggling to see how you can make ANY claim to truth based solely on intuition.

I dreamed last night that I owned a Ferrari, and woke up convinced that I did.  What do I do now?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #385 on: December 26, 2011, 03:52:39 AM »


I dreamed last night that I owned a Ferrari, and woke up convinced that I did.  What do I do now?

.........try an remember where you parked it
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline rickymooston

Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #386 on: December 26, 2011, 11:45:48 AM »
What would be an example of something that cannot be given a numerical value and would therefore be indefinite?

A large vaiety of things exist for which no objective measurement stick exists; e.g., beauty.

Your scale of beauty may exist and even in theory, you could potentially try to quantify beauty by measuring some aspects of your brain waves reaction to something. Of course, perhaps that measure would change over time and vary between individuals.

Can your perception of the color blue be measured? I don't know.

One then has to ask whether measurement is always useful.

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline rickymooston

Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #387 on: December 26, 2011, 11:55:26 AM »
How do you verify the truth of an intuition?

It depends. Often you don't. You merely use the intuition as a heuristic.

The truth is often not of a yes/no form.

It often deals in shades of grey.

Quote
Because if you can't/won't verify it, you have no way of knowing if your intuition is right or wrong?

Intuition is built upon and represents an encapsulation of experience. If further experience leads one to find one's intuition is wrong, one slowly replaces that intuition with new intuition.

Its not always the case that the result is something one can pin down and represent in the form of a hypothesis that can be used to be developed into a component of a scientific theory.

Quote
  Use intuition as a possible starting point for a hypothesis?  Sure - no problem with that at all.  But then what?  You test your intuition to see if it is valid.


Again depends how concrete the question is to which the intuition is being applied.

Imagine riding a bike. You learn how to do this. We can in fact, use Newtonian mechanics to explain the process but in order to learn to ride, you need experience.

I suppose that intuition is validated somewhat by you not falling but others may ride a bike better than you because they are using better techniques that you've not tried.

Quote
But go ahead - name an intuition that you can be sure is true that you have not verified with logic or evidence.  Because I'm honestly struggling to see how you can make ANY claim to truth based solely on intuition.

Again beware of this idea that all truths are of the form that can be described in explicit concrete tangible means. Somethings are hard to understand and quantify.

You kiss a girl, science isn't the best thing to use. It may explain your desire to kiss her and perhaps some aspects of kissing may be improved with an understanding of some of the science.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12282
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #388 on: December 26, 2011, 12:22:57 PM »
A large vaiety of things exist for which no objective measurement stick exists; e.g., beauty. ...

What you are saying is that things with a strictly subjective existence cannot be measured.  This is true.  Yeah, you can measure the brain activity related to the idea of beauty, but that's a measurement of the thought process, not of any objectively existing quality/quantity of "beauty" outside the mind.

Free will definitely has a subjective existence.  So do lots of other things that aren't real aspects of the universe.  "Only has a subjective existence" means "only exists in our heads".  Things that only exist in our heads are still important, to us, but they're not real in the sense that things that aren't just in our heads are real.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #389 on: December 26, 2011, 02:13:12 PM »
I'm saying I don't personally think all valid knowledge about objective reality has to come from logic or empirical evidence.  This knowledge can come from intuition alone in some cases, free-will being one to consider.

Really.

How do you verify the truth of an intuition?  Perhaps you - gosh! - use logic or empirical evidence?  Because if you can't/won't verify it, you have no way of knowing if your intuition is right or wrong?  Use intuition as a possible starting point for a hypothesis?  Sure - no problem with that at all.  But then what?  You test your intuition to see if it is valid.

But go ahead - name an intuition that you can be sure is true that you have not verified with logic or evidence.  Because I'm honestly struggling to see how you can make ANY claim to truth based solely on intuition.

I dreamed last night that I owned a Ferrari, and woke up convinced that I did.  What do I do now?

Ok, well, I intuitively may feel free to make a choice and then responsible for my action,   therefore have free-will to a degree.   So if many people around me agree that I was responsible, and free to choose, then I guess I would have objective evidence for my free will wouldn't I?

But, don't really need the objective proof if I just sense the responsibility.

I intuitively know I need to sleep.  Never had to use any logic or evidence to be sure it was true,  just always knew. One example of many...
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 02:19:53 PM by Gill »

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #390 on: December 26, 2011, 07:58:14 PM »


I intuitively know I need to sleep.  Never had to use any logic or evidence to be sure it was true,  just always knew. One example of many...

Experiencing the sensation of feeling tired is not an intuition. 

I think you are trying to distort/broaden the meaning of intuition to encompass things that may give you a position from which to argue.
I may be wrong, and you might be honestly putting forward what you think are actual examples of intuition.
I have no conclusive evidence, and I am reluctant to rely on intuition.  ;)
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline rickymooston

Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #391 on: December 26, 2011, 11:06:25 PM »
Experiencing the sensation of feeling tired is not an intuition. 

Intuition is a word applied to those thoughts and feelings we can't formalize. It may not discuss being tired but the emotional and indeed "body learning" are related concepts

There is a difference between playing hockey and reading about playing hockey.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #392 on: December 27, 2011, 02:53:44 AM »
But go ahead - name an intuition that you can be sure is true that you have not verified with logic or evidence.  Because I'm honestly struggling to see how you can make ANY claim to truth based solely on intuition.

I dreamed last night that I owned a Ferrari, and woke up convinced that I did.  What do I do now?

I intuitively know I need to sleep.  Never had to use any logic or evidence to be sure it was true,  just always knew. One example of many...

Really?  So you had no signs of tiredness?  No impairment in your physical or mental performance?  No "heavy eyelids"?   And there was no improvement in your performance AFTER you took a sleep?  And on the times you DIDN'T follow your "intuition", you experienced no physical or mental degredation that proved your intuition correct?

Well, I have to say I am amazed.  You "just knew" you needed to sleep without any signs from your body.  I'm amazed.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #393 on: December 27, 2011, 12:23:11 PM »
Yes, everyone should at first at least read how neurologists define the only purpose of some neurons to be inhibitory, hence the name 'inhibitory interneuron', before they consider such unimaginable ideas such as about how the vast majority of neurons aren't firing in synchrony, therefore inhibiting the flow of a signal.

Yes, that's a good idea.  http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_inhibition

love how you now move the goalposts.  Such nice usual deceit.

::meow meow::
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #394 on: December 27, 2011, 12:42:23 PM »
Ok, well, I intuitively may feel free to make a choice and then responsible for my action,   therefore have free-will to a degree.   So if many people around me agree that I was responsible, and free to choose, then I guess I would have objective evidence for my free will wouldn't I?

Depends.  If you are happy with a knee-jerk, unconsidered opinion, then yes - you probably DO think that that would be sufficient evidence.

Of course, since you've not been able - not even tried - to come up with an answer to the "save-game-universe", that level of evidence probably is sufficient for you.

- - - - -

Don't know if they have "The X-Factor" in your country......you know how so many contestants come on and sound like a cat chewing gravle?  And all of them say "well, all my friends and family say I can sing......"?  The contestants are relying on their own intuition they can sing, coupled with the biased and unconsidered tetstimony of those around them. 

By your reasoning, they CAN sing.  I'm amazed that none of them ever get through.....
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #395 on: December 27, 2011, 01:39:50 PM »
Everywhere.

If it were everywhere, than anything that could pick it up, would.

This means constant interference, the potential for a single consciousness to control multiple bodies, or multiple consciousnesses to fight over a single body. At least, this is what you would have to deal with if you want to hold the brain as a receiver.

Now that's a trippy thought, hehe.   Probably not everywhere in terms of space-time.  But, everywhere in terms that it could not be quantified.  It would surely have it's limitation on what it could effect.

"surely" the word invoked when a theist has no evidence for their nonsense.  a

again, gill, you make the claims, you need to support them with evidence.  If you want to claim that the brain is only a receiver, then you have to give an answer to the question I've asked before

"as I have asked elsewhere, if the brain is working by physical means, how does it pick up this nonsense you claim?  Why don't similar things also pick up this nonsense?"

you of course want to claim mysterious limits, which are just as well supported as your other garbage.  why not have mysterious limits on something that simply doesn't exist.  &)

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #396 on: December 27, 2011, 02:21:45 PM »
But go ahead - name an intuition that you can be sure is true that you have not verified with logic or evidence.  Because I'm honestly struggling to see how you can make ANY claim to truth based solely on intuition.

I dreamed last night that I owned a Ferrari, and woke up convinced that I did.  What do I do now?

I intuitively know I need to sleep.  Never had to use any logic or evidence to be sure it was true,  just always knew. One example of many...

Really?  So you had no signs of tiredness?  No impairment in your physical or mental performance?  No "heavy eyelids"?   And there was no improvement in your performance AFTER you took a sleep?  And on the times you DIDN'T follow your "intuition", you experienced no physical or mental degredation that proved your intuition correct?

Well, I have to say I am amazed.  You "just knew" you needed to sleep without any signs from your body.  I'm amazed.

heh.  No, course there's physical signs.   But none of those physical senses are a logical proof that I must sleep.   Yet, I knew that I must sleep.  So then my senses are giving me knowledge without any logical reasoning.  That's my idea of intuition.   

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #397 on: December 27, 2011, 02:28:05 PM »
do you mean instinct or intuition?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #398 on: December 27, 2011, 02:33:26 PM »
do you mean instinct or intuition?

I mean the thing which allows us to know something about reality without having to logically reason about it to know.   I call it intuition, I suppose you could also call it instinct, seems like pretty similar ideas to me....

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #399 on: December 27, 2011, 02:51:41 PM »

I mean the thing which allows us to know something about reality without having to logically reason about it to know.   I call it intuition, I suppose you could also call it instinct, seems like pretty similar ideas to me....

Actually according to Merriam Webster that is a serviceable definition of intuition, particularly definition 2C
Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Definition of INTUITION
1: quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

I suppose instinct COULD work for what you describe as well. Intuition works better though

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Definition of INSTINCT
1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

So at least this time you are not fuddling definitions of words so much. That's good. But really for me, I don't consider intuition and instinct to necessarily be the same thing. Just being picky about words. As you have noticed, we skeptics tend to expect things to mean what they say, and say what they mean.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #400 on: December 27, 2011, 02:59:06 PM »
do you mean instinct or intuition?

I mean the thing which allows us to know something about reality without having to logically reason about it to know.   I call it intuition, I suppose you could also call it instinct, seems like pretty similar ideas to me....

intuition is defined as is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason on wiki. Sounds pretty good to me.  And it fails consistently.  If intution works as you would claim, then people should be able to pick up abilities with no education.  They don't.  It takes exposure to reality, to reason, as it were.  Babies take some time to learn, they don't automatically know things.   Now the wiki article has a bit about intuition and spirutuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology)#Intuition_and_spirituality which I'm assuming is more what you are claiming.  and again, we don't see the unexposed having any great insight.  Feral children do not develop into little buddahs, they are badly harmed by the experience.

Instinct is different, an inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.  But they way you've used intuition made me think you were trying to make the argument that we somehow knew things before we could, that even as babies we could know something.  Again, in the example of feral children, we see we do not.  Humans must sleep or die. It's not an intuition, it is simply chemistry.  You don' sleep, you go psychotic, the brain again having a very physical limitation and no magic force to be seen.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #401 on: December 28, 2011, 04:21:46 AM »
But none of those physical senses are a logical proof that I must sleep.   Yet, I knew that I must sleep.  

Why do you know this?

How do you know this?

And perhaps more pertinently, how often do you "know you need sleep", when there are NO physical, mental, or environmental signs?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #402 on: December 28, 2011, 06:25:42 PM »
I asked Azd, way back in #264:
Quote
what exactly is your view? Can you state it in a couple of sentences? I've been responding to your statement in this post:
Quote
And there are those of us who believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth - ie. a truth about our experience - without believing it to be a physical fact.  Like me.
How is that different to Denis's position?  - "believing that reality is deterministic while pretending we have free will", as you put it.
You replied (cutting the footnotes):
Quote
1. I believe that all of reality is physically [deleted as superfluous, as agreed] deterministic.
2. The emotions one experiences when one thinks of one's self as having free will are essential to functioning as a human being.  The absence of the emotions one experiences when thinking of one's self as lacking free will is similarly essential.
3. Those emotions are not rational.  They are arbitrary outcomes of our biology.  I've had some success conditioning myself to feel the reverse of what I described; full success would almost completely solve the problems with adopting a deterministic outlook.
4. To completely solve the problems you've brought up, we also must understand concepts like "responsibility" in such a way that they make sense from a deterministic perspective.  I think I've succeeded at this, and am open to discussing it further.  The problem is akin to that of a theist who becomes an atheist but retains their belief that without a god, we have no morality.  A different moral paradigm is needed for that person, since they have only "half-way" abandoned their theism.
Does that help, Gnu?
That's more than a couple of sentences, considering you summarized my and Denis's positions concisely: believing that reality is deterministic while pretending we have free will, or believing that we really have "free will" while refraining from dealing with the problems of metaphysical dualism. But whatever.
 
Your points:
1. Understood.
2. Not understood. I'm not sure why you're talking about other people's emotions. I wanted to know your personal position.
3. Likewise. That doesn't tell me anything about your position.
4. From a deterministic perspective, concepts like responsibility don't make sense. Likewise freedom, credit, blame, and morality - all meaningless. Under determinism, nobody is responsible for their thoughts, feelings or actions. And again, this doesn't tell me anything about your position.

So no, that doesn't really help, Azd, sorry. I get point 1, but I knew that already.

And I still don't know what you mean when you say that you "believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth".

Gnu.

PS There's another post of yours I should reply to, but I thought I'd do this one separately.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #403 on: December 29, 2011, 12:29:41 AM »
Azd, #255,
Quote
Civilization depends on us not adopting determinism half-way - the bare fact of it, without a mature reaction to it.
I have no idea what you mean by 'mature' in that context. Can you clarify what you mean? (I hope you're not just telling me to grow up. That's a rather feeble argument).

Quote
There certainly is a replacement for the illusion of free-will: the reality of determinism.
Which seems to mean, acting as if free will is real. Let's treat people as if they were responsible for their actions, even though we know they're not.   

Quote
As for the lack of an alternative, I am trying to provide you with one.  You don't seem to want it, though.  Why is that? 
Because I don't see it. What is the reality of determinism ? You haven't said. You want me to accept that everything is determined, that freedom is an illusion, that we are all, in dloubet's metaphor, just stones bouncing down a mountain? No choices, no responsibility, no morality - just bouncing down the hill...

I choose not to believe that.

And of course, by your argument, it is inevitable that I choose that. It is inevitable that on this issue I value freedom more than truth. How can I do otherwise?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #404 on: December 30, 2011, 08:32:35 AM »
You want me to accept that everything is determined, that freedom is an illusion, that we are all, in dloubet's metaphor, just stones bouncing down a mountain? No choices, no responsibility, no morality - just bouncing down the hill...

Yup.  Doesn't sound very nice, I agree.  And I hate the way it gets presented, because it sounds far too close to the theistic "that's why you choose not to believe in god - so you have no responsibility, no morality...."

I choose not to believe that.  And of course, by your argument, it is inevitable that I choose that. It is inevitable that on this issue I value freedom more than truth. How can I do otherwise?

You can't....yet.  But us determinists know that - given the appropriate amount of additional information - your position may change.  Would have to change....if we pressed the right buttons.   ;D

All that we need to do is decide  :o to keep arguing....we're locked in this just as much as you are!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12282
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #405 on: December 30, 2011, 11:07:38 AM »
I thought I had replied to your posts in this thread, Gnu.  My bad.

2. Not understood. I'm not sure why you're talking about other people's emotions. I wanted to know your personal position.

I made statements in #2.  They were about myself and others.  It is my position that...<statements I made in #2>.  What didn't you get about them?

3. Likewise. That doesn't tell me anything about your position.

Really this is almost a part of #2, but I wanted to separate it for clarity.  Since you didn't understand what I wrote in #2, I can see how it wouldn't seem to tell you much.

4. From a deterministic perspective, concepts like responsibility don't make sense. Likewise freedom, credit, blame, and morality - all meaningless. Under determinism, nobody is responsible for their thoughts, feelings or actions. And again, this doesn't tell me anything about your position.

Uhh...did you even bother reading my post?  I tacitly acknowledged all this when I said that we needed different concepts of "responsibility" that do function under determinism.  See the bolded word?  "Different"?  Yeah, that was key.

So no, that doesn't really help, Azd, sorry. I get point 1, but I knew that already.

This brings me back to our meta-problem, Gnu.  I can't know at any point whether your not understanding something is due to a genuine failure of communication, or whether it's because you are deliberately deciding not to understand it.  The truth is less important than keeping your own beliefs, so the latter becomes expected (or at least unsurprising) behaviour.  And if you're deliberately not understanding, then I'm wasting my time.  I don't want to assume that's the case, but how can I know, given what you've said about your dogged determination to maintain your beliefs regardless of any arguments or facts?

And I still don't know what you mean when you say that you "believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth".

I mean the same thing about free will as I do about morality when I say that it is subjective.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.